Home›Solutions›Medical Evaluators
Medical record review for evaluators

Walk into every exam knowing the whole record.

Referral packets arrive organized, deduplicated, and cited before you open them. You spend your hours on the opinion — the only part that’s actually yours.

Referral packet · organizing exam-ready
1,412 pp → 9 providers, sorted & deduplicated
Prior lumbar injury, 2019 — surfaced to topp.1,847
History cross-checked — priors, treatment, imagingcited
Sorted by provider, date, and document type9 providers
EMG vs. progress note — diagnostic conflictp.212 · p.388
The page 1,847 problem, solved before the exam
The status quo

Evaluators inherit referrals thousands of pages deep, days before the exam. Sorting by hand eats the hours that should go to clinical judgment — and it's where the contradiction goes unnoticed until cross.

2–4 hrs
of chart review per referral
1,412 pp
in a typical packet
1
missed prior is all cross needs

Open a referral that's already organized.

Everything the exam needs — structured, surfaced, and sourced. Medrecords organizes the referral, builds the chronology, and drafts the history with citations, so your time goes to the evaluation and the opinion.

IME report · from your templateQME-104
p.31 p.212 p.640

Custom reports: your letterhead, your voice

Report templates draft the history and records review with inline citations — you add the findings and the opinion. Export clean, in your format, every time.

Chronology · by date
2019Prior injury · lumbar strain, pre-DOI
Feb 11Date of injury — ER visit
May 22MRI — Lumbar imaging placed inline
Jun 01Gap in care · 47 days
Jul 17Orthopedic consultation

Automated chronology: the history in order

Prior injuries, treatment, imaging, and gaps — every event dated, sourced, and in sequence. The whole medical history scannable before the claimant walks in.

Duplicate sets · 4Match similarity
Ambulance Call ReportmultipleReview
Consultation Report84%Review
Progress Note87%Review
Remove all duplicates

Dedup & indexing: shrink the packet first

Referral packets arrive bloated with duplicates and misfiled pages. Medrecords removes the redundancy and indexes what remains — so you read each page once.

Cross-checked · multi-modelReferral #M-2210
Claimant nameJane Doe✓
Date of injury2024-02-11✓
DiagnosisLumbar disc herniation✓
Prior injury2019 lumbar strain✓
Treatment to datePT ×12 · ESI ×2✓

Built to be verified — not just believed

Multiple models cross-check every extraction. Each field carries its citation and a confidence score, and low-confidence pulls are flagged — so your verification is a click, not a re-read.

Adapts to each referral

Built for expert-level decisions.

Contradictions, diagnostic inconsistencies, prior injuries — surfaced with citations, scored for confidence, and left for you to weigh. The judgment stays yours.

Intake · Case 2025-0412 reading — p. 1,462 / 1,847
PDF ED_records · 214 pp DOC ortho_chart · 1,128 pp JPG nurse_note · flagged
Multi-model read · dedupe · claimant split · index
1,847 pp in 612 unique 14 flagged 1 DICOM study
Organized recordby provider · date
01Jul 17Medical Records
02Jul 17Imaging Reports
03Aug 06Physician Notes
612 pp indexed · every row citedopen the case →

Surface the clinical details that change opinions

Contradictions across providers, diagnostic inconsistencies, and key clinical events — highlighted on the timeline and cited to the page, so you analyze instead of search.

You make the calls — always

AI does the reading, every line stays reviewable and traceable, and verification is one click to the source. The findings and the opinion remain yours — as they should.

Who this is for

You're the expert. Reading shouldn't be the job.

IMEs, QMEs, and peer reviewers are paid for judgment — not for finding page 863. Medrecords surfaces the clinical details that change opinions, cites each one, and leaves the conclusions to you.

Contradictions and diagnostic inconsistencies highlighted with sources
Records oriented by provider, facility, and date at a glance
More files per week — with the same clinical rigor
Records review · file 3 of 9 today panel-ready
Dx: cervical radiculopathy — progress notep.212
EMG negative — six weeks laterconflict · p.388
Prior claim, same body part — 2021p.63
ROM measurements — all visits, comparedtable
Contradictions found for you — conclusions stay yours
The objection

"Does AI-assisted review weaken my opinion in deposition?"

It strengthens it. Every fact is cited to its page, so you verify in seconds and attest having actually read the full record — the one claim opposing counsel can't make about a skimmed packet. The conclusions were never the machine's to draw.

45 min of prep per referral — down from an evening

"I walk in having actually read the whole record. That was never true before — nobody reads 1,400 pages the night before an exam."

QME · orthopedic surgery, California
Who we serve

One platform. Built for everyone who works the file.

The same defensible, cited record — shaped to how each team reads it: the case, the claim, or the exam.

Not sure which fits? Talk to us about Enterprise

Send us your next referral packet.

Read the output before your exam. Then decide.